The Economist versus Jonathan

SIR: I am saddened by the fuss generated over the the description of former President Goodluck Jonathan, by a writer in The Economist as an “ineffectual buffoon,” because of what the rage directed at the said writer suggests about the ways and mentality of Nigerian society. We fret over the age-old practice of irreverent castigation of a political leader by the press, yet pass unconcerned on the other side of the street when a boy is lynched for stealing a cheap cellphone! Does this not suggest that there is something seriously wrong with Nigerian society?

Does it not vindicate the charge by some that ours is an incorrigibly perverse society?

I’m not at all amused by the idea that political leaders in a democracy are, like demi-gods, beyond scrutiny, criticism, ridicule, and even the irreverent condemnation of the ordinary men and women to whom they are, or should be, accountable. Even more disturbing is the silly attempt to unconsciously muzzle free speech by wrapping the criticism of the magazine with appeals to the flag and racial pride.

As Justice George Sutherland said in Grosjean v. American Press Co. (1925), “A free press stands as one of the great interpreters between the government and the people. To allow it to be fettered is to be fettered ourselves.” Even Napoleon Bonarparte, one of the great villains of history, was, nevertheless, astute enough to recognize that free speech is one of the major foundations that progress and, therefore, civilization rest on, when he stated that “A people who is able to say everything becomes able to do everything” (Napoleon I, Maxims, 1804-15).

First, in defending the vital interests, well-being and progress of Nigeria, there should be very few limits indeed. Befuddled Nigerian youths, who can no longer differentiate between right and wrong, have brought the country into great international disrepute and blighted any immediate hopes for a brighter future for Nigeria. Street gangs roam our streets unleashing mayhem in broad daylight, university students, formed into gangs, shoot at one another and sexually assault their own female colleagues right on their own campuses, precisely because of the examples of the moral ambivalence shown by their elders, which, unfortunately, is again now being replicated in the criticisms of The Economist journalist. It is the great tragedy of Nigeria that otherwise sensible men and women shy away from calling monumental wrongdoing and evil [that has virtually destroyed this promising country] by their proper names because of some ill-conceived milk and water sentimentality which, in their own minds and culture, forbids a “mere journalist” or “Oyinbo” publication from referring to a “big man” in such contemptuous terms, no matter how accurate that description might in fact be.

Second, is it not a small step to refrain from describing leaders by the appropriate adjectives to accommodating their excesses, as we saw with the kinsmen of Ibori, Alamieyesiegha, etc.? And is Nigeria’s sullied honour not best redeemed by honest, if blunt, condemnation and disavowal of culpable leaders, rather than subtle obfuscation and moral equivocation, when we are confronted with evidence of their monumental wrongdoing?

Finally, with regards to who are especially offended because the castigation came from the Western press, and who would, therefore, rather see this as another racial slur, they would do well to remember that even the Western democracies, too, have a long history of errant politicians being irreverently castigated in the press – Richard Nixon was referred to as a “criminal”; Silvio Burlesconi a “buffoon” and Ehud Olmert (Israel), Moshe Katsav (Israel), Rod Blagojevich (USA), former Japanese premier Kakuei Tanaka, etc, have all been roundly castigated in the press for their conduct.

The former President Jonathan brought his present misfortunes on himself. The nation had rallied behind him with much sympathy and goodwill in the aftermath of late President Yaradua’s death, but he betrayed that trust by presiding over what can, from the emerging evidence, only be described as Corruption Inc.